August 16, 2018
Dear Friends and Family,
This is Segment 11 of the Climate Change series and builds on the Climate Science: Point and Counterpoint learnings of Segment 4. The advocate points in this segment are from The Thinking Person’s Guide to Climate Change (2014) by Robert Hanson. The skeptic counterpoints come from two different books Climate Change, The Facts (2015) and a new edition Climate Change, The Facts 2017. Both editions contain numerous Climate Change essays by a variety of scientific authors. Excerpts from these books note which of the two books was utilized, the title of the essay, and the essay’s author.
By way of background for this point and counterpoint debate, it assumes agreement by both parties to the following:
Therefore, the point-counterpoint debate narrows to three issues and two questions:
Issues:
1. What is the amount of warming produced by human-related emissions?
2. Is there actual evidence of dangerous human caused warming over the last 50 years?
3. Can the IPCC computer models provide accurate climate predictions?
Questions:
1. Is there any other known phenomenon that could cause global warming that is unaccounted for to date?
2. Is global warming a bad thing?
This segment focuses on these five points. The answer to the last question reveals some additional, totally new information of global greening via human caused CO2 fertilization which has increased farm yields and made some plants more drought resistant.
This is the last segment with Climate Science as a focal point. Segment 12 will finish the point and counterpoint debate on Future Global Consequences building on Segment 5. Hopefully, with this segment and the next, you will have will have determined which side of the debate you favor.
Happy Learning,
Harley
Dear Friends and Family,
This is Segment 11 of the Climate Change series and builds on the Climate Science: Point and Counterpoint learnings of Segment 4. The advocate points in this segment are from The Thinking Person’s Guide to Climate Change (2014) by Robert Hanson. The skeptic counterpoints come from two different books Climate Change, The Facts (2015) and a new edition Climate Change, The Facts 2017. Both editions contain numerous Climate Change essays by a variety of scientific authors. Excerpts from these books note which of the two books was utilized, the title of the essay, and the essay’s author.
By way of background for this point and counterpoint debate, it assumes agreement by both parties to the following:
- That climate has always changed and always will,
- That CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the accumulation of which may result in some warming of the lower atmosphere.
- That post-industrial human-related emissions comprise a new source of atmospheric CO2.
- That global warming of around 0.7 degrees C. may have occurred in the 20th century.
- That global warming has ceased over the last seventeen years.
Therefore, the point-counterpoint debate narrows to three issues and two questions:
Issues:
1. What is the amount of warming produced by human-related emissions?
2. Is there actual evidence of dangerous human caused warming over the last 50 years?
3. Can the IPCC computer models provide accurate climate predictions?
Questions:
1. Is there any other known phenomenon that could cause global warming that is unaccounted for to date?
2. Is global warming a bad thing?
This segment focuses on these five points. The answer to the last question reveals some additional, totally new information of global greening via human caused CO2 fertilization which has increased farm yields and made some plants more drought resistant.
This is the last segment with Climate Science as a focal point. Segment 12 will finish the point and counterpoint debate on Future Global Consequences building on Segment 5. Hopefully, with this segment and the next, you will have will have determined which side of the debate you favor.
Happy Learning,
Harley
CLIMATE CHANGE – SEGMENT 11
CLIMATE SCIENCE – MORE POINT AND COUNTERPOINT - EXCERPTS
POINT From: The Thinking Person's Guide to Climate Change (2014) by Robert Henson
THE ESSENCE OF THE SCIENTIFIC DEBATE: THREE SCIENCE ISSUES REMAIN IN DISPUTE:
Dispute 1: The amount of net warming that is produced by 'extra’ human-related emissions
ADVOCATE POINT: The more greenhouse gas we add, the more our planet warms. Once the added gases get through the process, a series of atmospheric readjustments follows. These are largely positive feedbacks that amplify the warming. More water evaporates from oceans and lakes, for instance, which roughly doubles the impact of a carbon dioxide increase.
SKEPTIC COUNTERPOINT 1: Despite a significant increase in industrial emissions of CO2, there has been no increase in global atmospheric temperature over the past 17 years. This shows that the theory: CO2 emissions of human origin drive global warming, must be rejected.
Source: Climate Change, The Facts: The Science & Politics of Climate Change by Dr. Ian Plimer
SKEPTIC COUNTERPOINT 2: IPCC scientists allege that the positive feedback effect from more water vapor itself generated by the initial CO2-forced warming, will result in a total warming of about 3-6 degrees C. However, this speculation conflicts with other empirical data and is therefore controversial. Though CO2 is a greenhouse gas, its warming efficacy rapidly diminished (in logarithmic fashion) as atmospheric concentrations rise.
When both positive (e.g. enhanced water vapor) and negative (e.g. enhanced low-level cloud) feedback effects, and geological climate records, are taken into consideration, little likelihood exists that conceivable levels of human emission will cause dangerous future warming.
Source: Climate Change, The Facts: The Scientific Context by Dr. Robert M Carter
SKEPTIC COUNTERPOINT 3: Emissions of CO2 from human activities account for about 3% of total annual emissions. If it could be shown that the human emissions of CO2 drive global warming, then it would also have to be shown that natural emissions of CO2, which amount to 97% of the total annual emissions do not drive global warming. But this has not been done.
During the time that humans have been on Earth, there has been no correlation between temperature change and human emissions of CO2. Past global warmings have not been driven by an increase in atmospheric CO2. Without correlation, there can be no causation.
Source: Climate Change, The Facts 2017: Carbon Dioxide and the Evolution of the Earth's Atmosphere by Dr. Ian Plimer
Dispute 2: Whether any actual evidence exists for dangerous warming or human causation
ADVOCATE POINT: Starting in 1958, precise measurements of CO2 confirmed its steady increase in the atmosphere. The first computer models of global climate in the 1960s, and more complex ones thereafter, supported the idea floated by mavericks earlier in the century: that the addition of greenhouse gases would indeed warm the climate. Finally, global temperature itself began to rise sharply in the 1980s, which helped raise the issue’s profile among the media and the public as well as among scientists.
SKEPTIC COUNTERPOINT: The human-induced global warming ideology is underpinned by the perception that the planet is static and the dynamic change only occurred once humans started to emit CO2. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no correlation between the emission of CO2 by humans and temperature. If it is only the human emission of CO2 that drive global warming, then there should have been no warming and cooling events before the Industrial Revolution.
Source: Climate Change, The Facts 2017: Carbon Dioxide and the Evolution of the Earth’s Atmosphere by Dr. Ian Plimer
Dispute 3: Can IPCC computer models provide accurate climate predictions into the future?
ADVOCATE POINT: That query has been tackled directly over the last couple of decades by an increasing body of research, much of it compiled and assessed by the IPCC, a unique team that has drawn on the world of more than 1000 scientists over more than 20 years. As shown below, the IPCC’s second, third, fourth, and fifth assessments have each issued progressively stronger statements on the likelihood of human involvement on the climate change in recent decades.
SKEPTIC COUNTERPOINT 1: It should be recognized that the basis for a climate that is highly sensitive to added greenhouse gases is solely due to the behavior of the computer models. Within these models, the primary effect of the greenhouse gases is multiplied several-fold by the interaction of the increase with water vapor and clouds, and other aspects of the system that are openly acknowledged by the IPCC to be highly uncertain.
Source: Climate Change, The Facts: Global Warming, Models. And Language by Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
SKEPTIC COUNTERPOINT 2: The IPCC itself describes its role as ‘to assess … the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.’ In short, before they began to compile their reports, the IPCC took ‘human-induced climate change’ as their belief.
The ‘principle’ under which the IPCC operates include the following: ‘In taking decisions and approving, adopting and accepting reports, the Panel, its Working Groups, and any Task Forces shall use all best endeavors to reach consensus.’ The IPCC’s objective of consensus is plainly anti-scientific.
Source: Climate Change, The Facts: Sun Shunned by Dr. William Soon
AN ADVOCATE QUESTION: Could some undiscovered phenomenon be to blame for the global warming other than human activity?
ADVOCATE POINT: It is growing extremely unlikely that a suitable candidate will emerge. Even if it did, it would beg a difficult question: if some newly discovered factor – something we’re not aware of now – can account for the climate change we’ve observed, then why aren’t CO2 gases producing the warming that basic physics tell us they should be?
SKEPTIC COUNTERPOINT: The argument advanced by the IPCC – that the Sun can only affect climate through irradiance, the irradiance changes are small, and so the Sun cannot play a major role in global warming of cooling trends – is incorrect. The IPCC has not made any significant attempts to include such solar effects in the IPCC’s modeling. As a result, the current generation of general circulation models (GCMs) underestimate the variability and changes from solar-induced climate signals.
Source: Climate Change, The Facts 2017: The Geological Context of Natural Climate Change by Dr. Bob Carter
A SKEPTIC QUESTION: Is Global Warming a Bad Thing?
ADVOCATE POINT: Some regions- and some species – are likely to benefit, at least temporarily, while many others will suffer intense problems and at least temporarily, while many others will suffer intense problems and upheavals. People in the poorest parts of the world, such as Africa, will generally be least equipped to deal with climate change, even if the changes there are no worse there than elsewhere.
SKEPTIC COUNTERPART 1: For the developing world the overriding priority is economic growth: improving the living standards of the people, which means among other things making full use of the cheapest available source of energy: fossil fuels. Asking these countries to abandon the cheapest available sources of energy is, at the very least, asking them to delay the conquest of malnutrition, to perpetuate the incidence of preventable disease, and to increase the numbers of premature deaths. Global warming orthodoxy is not merely irrational. It is wicked.
Source: Climate Change, The Facts: Cool It: An Essay on Climate Change by Nigel Lawson
SKEPTIC COUNTERPART 2: Here are two simple facts about the world today.
The biggest way in which CO2 emissions do good is through global greening. Satellite data shows that 25 to 50% of the vegetated parts of the planet has grown greener and just 4% browner, and that 70% of the greening can be attributed to an increased level of CO2. If there is 14% more vegetation on the planet than 30 years ago, and 70% of this can be directly attributed to CO2 fertilization, this means there is more food for humans and animals, and less land is needed to grow human food. It means lower food prices and less starvation.
Experiments show very clearly that a higher CO2 level makes plants more resistant to droughts – because they need to open their pores less and they lose less water as a result. Dr. Craig Idso estimated the increased value of the world’s crops as a result of the CO2 fertilization effect – over 30 years this increase come to US$3.2 trillion.
Now if you argue that the coal producers should be paying recompense for the damage they have done the world, you must admit that they can take into account any benefit they have done. It’s the net cost that counts. At the moment, it is mathematically indisputable that farmers owe coal producers a huge sum for supplying the with free CO2 fertilizer. The burning of fossil fuels has boosted farm yields.
Source: Climate Change, The Facts: The Poor are Carrying the Cost of Today’s Climate Policy by Dr. Matt Ridley
The unabbreviated version of the above can be found in the pdf document below.
CLIMATE SCIENCE – MORE POINT AND COUNTERPOINT - EXCERPTS
POINT From: The Thinking Person's Guide to Climate Change (2014) by Robert Henson
THE ESSENCE OF THE SCIENTIFIC DEBATE: THREE SCIENCE ISSUES REMAIN IN DISPUTE:
- The amount of net warming that is produced by 'extra' human-related emissions.
- Whether any actual evidence exists for dangerous warming of human causation.
- Can the IPCC's computer models provide accurate climate future predictions?
Dispute 1: The amount of net warming that is produced by 'extra’ human-related emissions
ADVOCATE POINT: The more greenhouse gas we add, the more our planet warms. Once the added gases get through the process, a series of atmospheric readjustments follows. These are largely positive feedbacks that amplify the warming. More water evaporates from oceans and lakes, for instance, which roughly doubles the impact of a carbon dioxide increase.
SKEPTIC COUNTERPOINT 1: Despite a significant increase in industrial emissions of CO2, there has been no increase in global atmospheric temperature over the past 17 years. This shows that the theory: CO2 emissions of human origin drive global warming, must be rejected.
Source: Climate Change, The Facts: The Science & Politics of Climate Change by Dr. Ian Plimer
SKEPTIC COUNTERPOINT 2: IPCC scientists allege that the positive feedback effect from more water vapor itself generated by the initial CO2-forced warming, will result in a total warming of about 3-6 degrees C. However, this speculation conflicts with other empirical data and is therefore controversial. Though CO2 is a greenhouse gas, its warming efficacy rapidly diminished (in logarithmic fashion) as atmospheric concentrations rise.
When both positive (e.g. enhanced water vapor) and negative (e.g. enhanced low-level cloud) feedback effects, and geological climate records, are taken into consideration, little likelihood exists that conceivable levels of human emission will cause dangerous future warming.
Source: Climate Change, The Facts: The Scientific Context by Dr. Robert M Carter
SKEPTIC COUNTERPOINT 3: Emissions of CO2 from human activities account for about 3% of total annual emissions. If it could be shown that the human emissions of CO2 drive global warming, then it would also have to be shown that natural emissions of CO2, which amount to 97% of the total annual emissions do not drive global warming. But this has not been done.
During the time that humans have been on Earth, there has been no correlation between temperature change and human emissions of CO2. Past global warmings have not been driven by an increase in atmospheric CO2. Without correlation, there can be no causation.
Source: Climate Change, The Facts 2017: Carbon Dioxide and the Evolution of the Earth's Atmosphere by Dr. Ian Plimer
Dispute 2: Whether any actual evidence exists for dangerous warming or human causation
ADVOCATE POINT: Starting in 1958, precise measurements of CO2 confirmed its steady increase in the atmosphere. The first computer models of global climate in the 1960s, and more complex ones thereafter, supported the idea floated by mavericks earlier in the century: that the addition of greenhouse gases would indeed warm the climate. Finally, global temperature itself began to rise sharply in the 1980s, which helped raise the issue’s profile among the media and the public as well as among scientists.
SKEPTIC COUNTERPOINT: The human-induced global warming ideology is underpinned by the perception that the planet is static and the dynamic change only occurred once humans started to emit CO2. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no correlation between the emission of CO2 by humans and temperature. If it is only the human emission of CO2 that drive global warming, then there should have been no warming and cooling events before the Industrial Revolution.
Source: Climate Change, The Facts 2017: Carbon Dioxide and the Evolution of the Earth’s Atmosphere by Dr. Ian Plimer
Dispute 3: Can IPCC computer models provide accurate climate predictions into the future?
ADVOCATE POINT: That query has been tackled directly over the last couple of decades by an increasing body of research, much of it compiled and assessed by the IPCC, a unique team that has drawn on the world of more than 1000 scientists over more than 20 years. As shown below, the IPCC’s second, third, fourth, and fifth assessments have each issued progressively stronger statements on the likelihood of human involvement on the climate change in recent decades.
- 1995: The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate
- 2001: There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities
- 2007: Human induced warming of the climate system is widespread
- 2013: It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century
SKEPTIC COUNTERPOINT 1: It should be recognized that the basis for a climate that is highly sensitive to added greenhouse gases is solely due to the behavior of the computer models. Within these models, the primary effect of the greenhouse gases is multiplied several-fold by the interaction of the increase with water vapor and clouds, and other aspects of the system that are openly acknowledged by the IPCC to be highly uncertain.
Source: Climate Change, The Facts: Global Warming, Models. And Language by Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
SKEPTIC COUNTERPOINT 2: The IPCC itself describes its role as ‘to assess … the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.’ In short, before they began to compile their reports, the IPCC took ‘human-induced climate change’ as their belief.
The ‘principle’ under which the IPCC operates include the following: ‘In taking decisions and approving, adopting and accepting reports, the Panel, its Working Groups, and any Task Forces shall use all best endeavors to reach consensus.’ The IPCC’s objective of consensus is plainly anti-scientific.
Source: Climate Change, The Facts: Sun Shunned by Dr. William Soon
AN ADVOCATE QUESTION: Could some undiscovered phenomenon be to blame for the global warming other than human activity?
ADVOCATE POINT: It is growing extremely unlikely that a suitable candidate will emerge. Even if it did, it would beg a difficult question: if some newly discovered factor – something we’re not aware of now – can account for the climate change we’ve observed, then why aren’t CO2 gases producing the warming that basic physics tell us they should be?
SKEPTIC COUNTERPOINT: The argument advanced by the IPCC – that the Sun can only affect climate through irradiance, the irradiance changes are small, and so the Sun cannot play a major role in global warming of cooling trends – is incorrect. The IPCC has not made any significant attempts to include such solar effects in the IPCC’s modeling. As a result, the current generation of general circulation models (GCMs) underestimate the variability and changes from solar-induced climate signals.
Source: Climate Change, The Facts 2017: The Geological Context of Natural Climate Change by Dr. Bob Carter
A SKEPTIC QUESTION: Is Global Warming a Bad Thing?
ADVOCATE POINT: Some regions- and some species – are likely to benefit, at least temporarily, while many others will suffer intense problems and at least temporarily, while many others will suffer intense problems and upheavals. People in the poorest parts of the world, such as Africa, will generally be least equipped to deal with climate change, even if the changes there are no worse there than elsewhere.
SKEPTIC COUNTERPART 1: For the developing world the overriding priority is economic growth: improving the living standards of the people, which means among other things making full use of the cheapest available source of energy: fossil fuels. Asking these countries to abandon the cheapest available sources of energy is, at the very least, asking them to delay the conquest of malnutrition, to perpetuate the incidence of preventable disease, and to increase the numbers of premature deaths. Global warming orthodoxy is not merely irrational. It is wicked.
Source: Climate Change, The Facts: Cool It: An Essay on Climate Change by Nigel Lawson
SKEPTIC COUNTERPART 2: Here are two simple facts about the world today.
- Climate Change is doing more good than harm
- Climate Change Policy is doing more harm than good
The biggest way in which CO2 emissions do good is through global greening. Satellite data shows that 25 to 50% of the vegetated parts of the planet has grown greener and just 4% browner, and that 70% of the greening can be attributed to an increased level of CO2. If there is 14% more vegetation on the planet than 30 years ago, and 70% of this can be directly attributed to CO2 fertilization, this means there is more food for humans and animals, and less land is needed to grow human food. It means lower food prices and less starvation.
Experiments show very clearly that a higher CO2 level makes plants more resistant to droughts – because they need to open their pores less and they lose less water as a result. Dr. Craig Idso estimated the increased value of the world’s crops as a result of the CO2 fertilization effect – over 30 years this increase come to US$3.2 trillion.
Now if you argue that the coal producers should be paying recompense for the damage they have done the world, you must admit that they can take into account any benefit they have done. It’s the net cost that counts. At the moment, it is mathematically indisputable that farmers owe coal producers a huge sum for supplying the with free CO2 fertilizer. The burning of fossil fuels has boosted farm yields.
Source: Climate Change, The Facts: The Poor are Carrying the Cost of Today’s Climate Policy by Dr. Matt Ridley
The unabbreviated version of the above can be found in the pdf document below.
| 11_cc_long_climate_science_more_debate_--_segment_11.pdf |